Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Founders

Hi,

There were only two founders of LGBA. How can I fix this? Bev Jackson and Kate Harris are the two founders. The others mentioned were founding members. How do I go about fixing this issue so that it isn't misrepresented in the future? Would an official letter from LGBA fix this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcowie (talk • contribs) 16:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see the following discussions in Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4 where this was discussed previously: Founders, Add Malcolm Clark as founder in article, Add Gary Powell as founder, and Add Alison Bailey as founder in article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The information provided in those discussion is factually incorrect, respectfully. Would an official letter from LGB Alliance, stating their founders, fix this? (Samcowie (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

You would need some reliable secondary sources. A letter, blog post, or social media post from the LGB Alliance would be a primary source. That said, I'm not sure why you think all of the reliable sources in those discussions are incorrect? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll get onto that ASAP. Thank you for your advice. (Samcowie (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

I'm not sure what all this is really about. If it is part of some infighting, in which the various "founders" and/or "founding members" (which I am not even sure is a meaningful distinction) have fallen out, then it is not for Wikipedia to weigh in on that beyond reporting what, if anything, reliable secondary sources say about it.

In the meantime, I note that you seem to be suggesting that you are in a position to arrange for the LGBA to issue a statement. If that is correct then, depending on the level of your involvement with them, you may have a conflict of interests that you might need to declare. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No conflict of interests issues here but thank you for highlighting the need for this, it's really important! People are being described as founders who aren't founders. In the interest of providing readers with accurate information, I think it's important to highlight this. (Samcowie (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

That brings us back to the question I asked earlier. Why do you think multiple reliable sources on this are incorrect? If this is the case, then The Times has made this mistake twice; once in January 2020 for Malcolm Clark, and more recently in June 2021 when they said Allison Bailey was one of the co-founders. And PinkNews has made it at least once in June 2021 when they said Ann Sinnott was one of the founders. While I could accept one of them being incorrect, and I recognise it is not impossible however I find it somewhat unlikely multiple sources are wrong on this especially with recent sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The Times article mentioned doesn't actually say that Malcolm was a founder. It says, 'The LGB Alliance’s founders have rejected the accusation that their group threatens the transgender community. Malcolm Clark, who helped to organise Saturday’s event, said: “It’s a pity that Oran Mor have felt the need to reassure people that they are inclusive. We too are inclusive. We have many trans supporters whom we value and respect, and there were many at the event.” Malcolm helped organise a specific event. I can see the confusion, I think the two sentences right beside each other leads to a misleading paragraph. The article by Debbie Hayton in The Spectator is also, in my opinion, further proof of my point. It states, ' Its founders Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were veteran lesbian campaigners. They were joined by filmmaker Malcolm Clark and barrister Allison Bailey, and supported by Simon Fanshawe, a founding member of Stonewall UK thirty years earlier.' In my opinion, this clearly marks the difference between Bev and Kate being founders and being joined later by others as members. The Pink News article I have no rebuttal for currently other than to say I don't think using a source from them is ideal given that they describe the LGB Alliance as a hate-group with no real evidence. I don't think there's impartiality there, but I may be wrong. I'd like to make clear though that my only intention in proposing these edits are that readers are provided with the truth and I hope I've been respectful! these are just my concerns around naming Malcolm as a founder but I'll post my concerns about the others in due course. I'd like to offer some articles that may help my case if possible: states that Bev Jackson and Kate Harris were the founders. this again states that both were the founders. again this states that both were the founders. Hope this is helpful. (Samcowie (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

The article by Debbie Hayton is an opinion piece and not reliable for statements of fact. It also does not disprove that there were founders beyond Kate and Bev, as the following sentence in context links both Malcolm and Allison as founders. Filia is a conference and podcast, and that link is a blogpost about their podcast. It is not as far as I can tell a reliable source. Lesbian and Gay News is an unreliable source and cannot be used for sourcing.

With respect to The Times on Malcolm Clark, that is one way to read the sentence but it is not the only way. The first sentence implies that the subject of the next sentence is a founder. In any event, we could easily substitute that for either PinkNews or Spiked.

As for The Times piece you provided, it is not at all uncommon for sources to non-exhaustively list important or notable people in relation to an organisation when they are not relevant to the context. In the context of that piece, where they are contributors because of being "cancelled", it does not make sense for the Times to list all of the founders, as the other three are not relevant to the article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You have used The Spectator piece as evidence to support your argument of adding Malcolm Clark to a list of supposed founders. That's actually where I got it from. The link provided re Lesbian and Gay news is a discussion that happened in the week of its launch, if I'm not getting my dates mixed up. Can I ask how it was decided that they were not a reliable source so early on? It's the first time I've come across something like that and it looks really quite shifty to me. I'll pop back with some sources that you'll hopefully find agreeable ASAP. Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. (Samcowie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC))

For Lesbian and Gay News, I'd suggest reading all of the comments in detail, but in summary it seems they have no track record for fact checking, and take a very WP:FRINGE position on this subject area. As for how it was established so quickly, I won't comment as I didn't partake in that discussion, though the opinions of each editor should be clear from their comments. If you feel that is unfair, I'd recommend opening a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, but personally I've not seen anything from them in the time since that discussion to disprove the consensus established there.

Thanks for pointing out that we're using the Spectator piece in the article, I'll make a change to that shortly and substitute in a better source. Misread what you said about The Spectator, sorry. You're correct that I suggested it earlier as one of the supporting pieces in favour of Malcolm Clark, however it wasn't used as a source for adding him, and there were three other sources that also stated. If other editors at the time had commented I suspect the RSOPINION issue would have been highlighted sooner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC) stricken incorrect reading and reworded Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add another article by Spiked that clearly states the LGB Alliance was co-founded by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. It doesn't suggest that there are another other founders other than the two I have named. (Samcowie (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC))

Apologies for adding another straight away but I'd just remembered I had it. Article by Attitude magazine. (Samcowie (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC))

Article by Gay Times clearly stating both Bev Jackson and Kate Harris are the only founders. An article from Vice clearly states that both Bev Jackson and Kate Harris founded LGB Alliance in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samcowie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources are exclusionary to there being founders beyond Bev and Kate. The podcast transcript in Spiked is on their role in setting up the organisation, but does not mention at all any contributions or lack of contributions from other people in the founding of the organisation. The two pieces in Attitude and Gay Times relating to the letter from Boris Johnson only mention Bev and Kate because they were who the letter was addressed to. The Vice piece lists Bev and Kate as co-founders, and additionally that Kate is a director but it is not exclusionary on there being other founders or directors.

To show why it is important to note that these sources are not exclusionary of there being other founders or directors, I'd direct you to check the organisations initial filing on Companies House, at the time of its registration it listed four directors; Bev Jackson, Kate Harris, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott. Ann has since resigned as director, but Malcolm is still active. If we were to go on the Vice piece alone, we could (hypothetically) only list Kate as a director, despite there being four directors at the time of its first filing.

As I said previously, it is not unusual for media sources to only name people that are relevant in an article, and typically do so in a way that is not exclusionary of there being other people with the same role. And in light of that, I would find it somewhat unusual that multiple reliable sources (PinkNews, GScene, HSJ, The Times, iNews) as well as the judge (pg 15) in Allison Bailey's employment tribunal case, have consistently and repeatedly over time got this wrong. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the connection between directors of an organisation and the founders. They are completely separate things. There is only mention of directors when it comes to Ann Sinnott. As for the employment tribunal, it says that Allison Bailey helped launch LGB Alliance, it does not say she founded it. You'd mentioned previously that there was more than one way of interpreting something. What we know so far, is that Kate and Bev were founders. The others people mentioned have articles saying they are and articles saying they are not or were founding members. I think it's important to distinguish between founders and founding members. From a speech recently given by Allison Bailey, from around 8 minutes in, she states there were 70 people at the launch of LGB Alliance. Invited by Kate Harris and Bev Jackson. Why are the other people who were invited not on the founders list in this article? I think it's clearly because everyone who was invited to this were invited as guests. Why would Allison and Malcolm be invited to an event, by Kate and Bev, if they were also founders? I'll come back ASAP with reliable sources that clearly state Bev and Kate were the only founders. (Samcowie (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC))

The GScene article you mentioned has been changed and states Ann Sinnott was a founding member. All this took was an email asking them to reflect the truth in their article. They thanked me for pointing out this error. I'm expecting more of these publications to follow and will update the page as and when they reply to me. (Samcowie (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC))

I must say that I am concerned by the level of involvement that you are showing here. It seems that you are reaching out to the publishers of sources and inducing them to change what they say in order to affect what we say here on Wikipedia. Are they really doing this on your uncorroborated say-so as an uninvolved person? Is there some evidence that you have shown them that you have not shown us? If so, what is it, how do you have it and why have you not shown us? Do you have some standing within the LGB Alliance that might make them consider your claims about them authoritative? Is there anything that you would like to declare? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I share the same concerns as DanielRigal. It's one thing to say "Source A got it wrong, source B & C shows that", it's another entirely to say "Source A got it wrong, I've contacted them and they've made a retraction". That GScene changed their article, some six+ months after it was published, either means you have some very convincing evidence that you provided to them, or that they have a very low barrier for corrections. The former implies a WP:COI, the later casts doubt on that source's reliability in general. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Samcowie. If Samcowie has a COI they should absolutely declare it, but any private citizen can contact any outlet and ask for correction, just as anyone can edit Wikipedia. If an outlet does make a correction, that is their editorial prerogative. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

True, but I'm not entirely sure that it's above board to dispute the content of a Wiki article, have it pointed out that the sources disagree, and then convince the same sources to change what they say. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to declare. I'm happy to show the email I sent to GScene. I don't know if that is possible here but in the interest of full disclosure, I'd be happy to do so. I have said multiple times that I am interested in providing readers with the truth. I personally don't feel that enough scrutiny was given when selecting the 'founders' and I'm currently challenging that in a polite and respectful manner without trying to cast doubts over anyone intentions. Isn't scrutiny allowed when editing a page? As for the concerns of the level of involvement, that could be said about any number of people who have edited/contributed to this page many times. It feels, and I hope I'm wrong, that there's been a challenge to the current content of this article and instead of accepting that a publication made an editorial mistake and apologised, it is instead focusing on my intentions and credibility. As I've said, I'm interested in providing user of this site with accurate information. That is all. (Samcowie (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC))

I should say that the email I sent to GScene contained two sentences. It didn't contain anything that hasn't been used here, in this forum, and the reply was also short and sweet. A thank you for pointing out an error and a notice that it had been changed. (Samcowie (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC))

@Samcowie: While I do agree that it would have been good if more people had contributed to the discussions in archive 4 at the time they were here, that is not what I'm concerned about. I said before, it is one thing to say "I think this source got it wrong, here's why", and another entirely to contact the source and get them to change what they say in favour of the version you are disputing. The former is fine, and a part of scrutinising sources. The latter, at least in my opinion, is not. I'm happy to discuss the former, especially if you are able to bring evidence of other sources definitively stating that the only founders were Kate and Bev, as changing the sources we do or do not use in an article is encouraged. But I hope you can understand my concern about changing what the sources themselves actually say in favour of a particular outcome. At that point you've left the realm of editing an encyclopedia, and entered into WP:OR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I didn't change what a source said. I highlighted that I thought the information they provided was inaccurate and they agreed. I have a right to do this. I did not tell them what to write. I have no power to do so. That is down to their editorial team and is not something I have any control over.

The issue I'm having is that I have provided you with articles that state the co-founders are Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. You have replied to these saying it is normal for publications not to include all of the founders, which I don't agree with. You have presented articles that Malcolm Clarke is a founder or Allison Bailey etc and some that don't say this. It clear, at least to me, that there are only two founders. In my opinion, we should start with Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as founders and then contributors can prove there are more. I don't think that's been done, at any point. This should've been through a discussion on this forum which I completely accept that you tried to do which is great! It just seems no one added to that discussion and for that I apologise. Had I known that discussion was underway, I'd have happily discussed this with you then.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that publications make errors. It happens all the time. I also don't think there's anything wrong with challenging that. It aids discussion to have factual errors or mistakes rectified. From the beginning of this discussion, there have been comments posted that seem, at least to me, to suggest or allude to the fact that I have some kind of nefarious motive here. My 'level of involvement' has been questioned despite other users having spent far more time editing this page. It does feel that difference of opinion on the topic of the founders isn't welcomed and is potentially scrutinised more than opinion in favour the current page. I'm only highlighting this to potentially give you insight into why I feel quite strongly about this and to hopefully help you better understand my thinking. I hope we can continue to discuss this matter in good faith and that the credibility of myself isn't the main focus of our discussions. (Samcowie (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC))

@Samcowie: that's semantics. You may not have directly edited the source yourself, but your actions did result in the source being changed. And the change that the source made is somewhat in favour of the version you are disputing towards. That is concerning.

As for the the assumptions of good faith, while I don't want to speak on @DanielRigal:'s behalf, when you asked Would an official letter from LGB Alliance, stating their founders, fix this? that does imply a level of involvement with the organisation, and given the policy points on conflicts of interest the question was a fair one. As I've said before, it is one thing to dispute a source by saying source A has it wrong, have you considered source b or c? and something else entirely to say source A has it wrong, I've contacted them and they've made a change to that article. The former is fine, and encouraged. The later is concerning, especially when the change that was made to the source is in favour of the version you are disputing. That's not neutral.

As for sources not citing all the relevant names, I'll give a current example as I was editing pages related to this last night. The jury for Sines v. Kessler made a determination yesterday. If you're not aware, that case stemmed from the violence in Charlottesville back in 2017. In that case there were 14 individual and 10 organisations as defendants. The only source to name all of the defendants outside of the court transcripts was Daily Progress. Every other source, starting from AP News and Reuters, down to local US affiliate news stations only mentioned a subset of the individuals. Most sources only mentioned the two or three most prominent names.

Or another example that's maybe more relevant to the LGB Alliance, here's an article on Stonewall relating to comments made separately by Matthew Parris, and Simon Fanshawe. Both Fanshawe and Parris were, according to Stonewall's website, each one of the fourteen founders of the organisation. The PinkNews piece mentions five of those fourteen by name; Parris, Fanshawe, Ian McKellen, Lisa Power, and Michael Cashman. The other nine are not mentioned by name because they are not relevant to the article content. Similarly, if you read the comments by Fanshawe that Stonewall's CEO is responding to, you'll see that that interview only mentions one other founder, Ian McKellen. Again because the other twelve are not relevant. I'd also draw your attention to the somewhat meaningless distinction between founder and founding member there. Stonewall's website lists the fourteen names as founding members and/or trustees, whereas both PinkNews and Holyrood lists those named in their respective articles as founders.

This sort of thing, of only mentioning relevant names to a piece, is normal in journalism.

In my opinion, we should start with Kate Harris and Bev Jackson as founders and then contributors can prove there are more. That has already happened, at least for Allison Bailey. See Talk:LGB Alliance/Archive 4#Founders. I'd also disagree with removing the other founders, as I do believe calling them as such is supported by the sources. The current text on the founders has been stable and unchallenged for some months, reverting away from it to a version that does not have consensus makes no sense to me. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

All the sources in this list confirm that Kate Harris and Bev Jackson were the sole founders. The refusal to reach consensus on this change is what makes no sense. Getting bond wrong (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I haven't responded as I've been unwell. The past few messages have focused solely on me and my intentions. Despite me telling you I have no conflict of interests, while I agree that the question was valid the first time the level of focus on this after my telling you I didn't have any is also concerning.. This should have ended when I said that. The level of scrutiny of myself, after pointing out what I see as errors, is more concerning to me. If I was to make a wild assumption, like the ones made about me, I'd suggest that there's a lack of impartiality. In reference to you being concerned re my contact with a source. I have done nothing wrong and have checked this with Wikipedias policies. I'm not doing anything to fit my narrative, I only seek the truth. Bev and Kate Harris are clearly the only founders and everyone else are clearly founding members. Theres a huge difference between these and its concerning that no one sees that. I hope we can move this discussion on in good faith and leave assumptions and accusations at the door. (Samcowie (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC))

I'm sorry to hear you've been unwell Samcowie, and I hope that you're starting to feel better.

Respectfully, the COI thing is somewhat overblown. Both DanielRigal have had legitimate reasons to question it, as both your initial contribution here and where you contacted GScene which resulted in them changing the content of their article implied a level of involvement with the LGB Alliance beyond that of outside observer.

Just FYI, I've asked over at Wikipedia:Help desk#Policy on contacting a reliable source and asking it for a correction about whether or not there is a policy on contacting sources, and asking them to issue a correction. I'm not sure if that's the correct help/discussion board, and if I have to move it I'll update this reply with the new link post-move. I just want to ensure we're all policy compliant (if there is a policy) in this area, as it has been alarming to both myself and DanielRigal in the past.

As for the actual content dispute at hand, I'm not sure how else to address your concerns. Just to reiterate the sources used in the article at present The Times state Allison Bailey is a co-founder, The Times also state in context that Malcolm Clark was a founder, and PinkNews state that Ann Sinnott was a founder. We also have additional sources that could be used for all three per the talk page discussion in Archive 4. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I got confirmation over at the help desk that asking a source to make a correction is allowed. So I want to apologise for any stress that put you through, and I hope you can understand the concerns raised here that required checking out. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Sideswipe9th, for your well wishes and your apology. The latter is unnecessary but I appreciate it and I'm glad that is cleared up. Can we take into account the information on their website - LGB Alliance that is - or is that not allowed? I'll cite it here. The interview by Lesbian and Gay news is also quite telling. While I accept Lesbian and Gay news are not considered a reliable source, despite this being decided so quickly after their formation, surely this must at least make you consider that the only founders were Bev Jackson and Kate Harris. I'm sadly not giving up on this one as I think this clearly proves my argument and I hope we continue to debate this in good faith. Thanks again for your kind words. (Samcowie (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC))

Lesbian and Gay News, the proper place to discuss their reliability is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you feel as though the consensus against them is incorrect, feel free to open a discussion there to seek to change it.

As for the comments on the LGB Alliance website, I'd refer you first to WP:ABOUTSELF. However, I'm not convinced they are reliable narrators about their own history. This is the earliest archived version of their website, dated December 2019, approximately two months after their founding. Under "Meet the Team" there are four people listed; Kate Harris, Bev Jackson, Malcolm Clark, and Ann Sinnott. These four names are also listed on their initial Companies House filing from November 2019. Allison is somewhat of a special case, while she is not listed in either the Companies House nor the earliest version of the website as a founder, she is currently engaged in legal proceedings against Stonewall for her role in founding the LGB Alliance. Given the nature of that case, if she hasn't already I would expect her and her legal team to be making submissions on the basis that she is a founder. Unfortunately we'll have to wait for that judgement to be released to find out exactly how her involvement has been described. But for now, we do have multiple secondary sources that list her as one of the founders.

I know that this can be frustrating, as you've said a few times now you want "provide/reflect the truth" in this article. Our goal as Wikipedia editors is not to find the truth. It is to report what other reliable sources have verifiably said about a given topic. Article content must be based on reliable secondary sources. I've shown earlier how we have reliable secondary sources that list Kate, Bev, Malcolm, Ann, and Allison as founders. For the first four, we also have some WP:PRIMARY sources that concur with the secondary, and some which disagree. For Allison, we may have primary evidence in support or against whenever her case judgement is released. However why the organisation no longer considers Malcolm, Ann, and Allison as founders is mostly immaterial to us. We aren't here to resolve that conundrum, we are here to state what reliable secondary sources have said about them. As DanielRigal said If it is part of some infighting, in which the various "founders" and/or "founding members" (which I am not even sure is a meaningful distinction) have fallen out, then it is not for Wikipedia to weigh in on that beyond reporting what, if anything, reliable secondary sources say about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're still not satisfied with this response, in lieu of a circular discussion, I would like to point out the Dispute resolution process. There's a few different forms that it can take, ranging from a third opinion, to noticeboards, to a Request for Comment. Each of those processes involve varying degrees of third part input, and I'll be happy to engage with you through any of them if you feel as though it will help break this deadlock. My personal preference would probably be a lighter touch for now, in the form of a third opinion, or a neutrally worded notification at each of the four WikiProjects listed in the header of this talk page (Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and LGBT Studies), however if you want to go for a full on RfC then I'd strongly recommend familiarising yourself with WP:RFCBEFORE as that has a bunch of helpful tips on making sure an RfC is successful and properly formatted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Category ‘Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom’

@PBZE: It does not make sense to have a category whose description contradicts its meaning. And there is no ‘precedent’. All the articles in this category had this category added today, by the same editor.

There is a category for organizations that oppose transgender rights which is already applied to this article. But if you say that an organisation is opposed to LGBT rights that means they are opposed to rights for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, as well as trans people. For instance, this would mean that the organisations are opposed to legislation banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and are opposed to same-sex marriage.

Adding this category to this article (and others) falsifies the information provided by Wikipdedia. You should self-revert. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It gives completely the wrong impression to readers. I've removed the newly-created category. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not moved to reinstate it at the moment but there definitely are open questions around the wider anti-LGBT mood music emanating from the LGBA. I have seen them accused of biphobia and bi erasure. I have seen them accused of opposing the proposed ban on "conversion therapy" in the UK. People involved with it have seemingly opposed gay marriage. Of course, we can't be getting into original research here but if there are genuinely reliable sources to corroborate this then maybe the category could be shown to be valid at some point. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding conversion therapy, IIRC there is some concern that the law is worded in such a way that it bans normal gender-exploratory therapy with children. Touching on this matter, two experts wrote in the Washington Post, "But comprehensive assessment and gender-exploratory therapy is the most critical part of the transition process....There are several reasons the process can move too quickly and hurtle toward medical treatment....Slowing down the process and encouraging deeper, thoughtful exploration is considered, many tell us, unnecessary and unaffirming. Providers may also be afraid of being cast as transphobic bigots by their local colleagues and referral sources if they engage in gender exploring therapy with patients, as some have equated this with conversion therapy. We’ve personally experienced this backlash at professional conferences." Crossroads ^-talk- 08:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't check the category history before making that edit. I probably should have. Although I disagree with the narrow definition of being opposed to LGBT rights. We say people and groups opposed specifically to lesbians or gay men are anti-LGBT even if they have only been only vocally opposed to one group. Categories on Wikipedia are catch-alls and people browsing "Anti-LGBT groups" expect to find a list of organizations which contribute to overall anti-LGBT activity, even if just a component. Also, I agree with DanielRigal that transphobic rhetoric and anti-LGB rhetoric may not be entirely separated from each other. PBZE (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The article is already categorized under a trans-related category, so adding this is saying they oppose LGB rights too. This fails WP:CATV. Crossroads ^-talk- 08:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which supports the idea that LGB Alliance, an advocacy group for LGB people, is opposed to rights for LGB people, which is what the category says. So it is a nonsense to have this category applied to this article. And it should be deleted, since there is no consensus to add it. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there anything in the article, other than WP:MANDY statements, supporting your contention that LGB Alliance is an advocacy group for LGB people? It is an anti-transgender pressure group, period. It doesn't do anything else. Newimpartial (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Your statement that LGB Alliance does nothing but oppose transgender rights is your opinion, not supported by any sources. To say that an organisation whose stated purpose is as an advocacy group for LGB rights is, in fact, opposed to LGB rights is an extraordinary statement which requires wide-ranging and watertight evidence. No evidence at all has been provided. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • LGB Alliance is widely described by sources as a hate group that primarily opposes the rights of transgender people. Whether they claim to do anything else, and whether they weaponise their own idea of "gay rights" in their anti-transgender crusade, is immaterial. They can be both at the same time. Any organisation that actively campaigns against any LGBT rights is an anti-LGBT group. They don't have to focus on every single letter of the alphabet; for example bisexuals aren't mentioned that often by anti-LGBT groups, but using that as a reason to exclude them from a discussion of anti-LGBT groups, or such categories, would just be ridiculous. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, Sweet, reliable sources back me up on this one. Alliance activists have opposed gay marriage and harassed gay (not trans) MPs who espouse mainstream LGBT political positions. This isn't really in question - it's an anti-trans pressure group. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Even PinkNews says "anti-trans" and not "anti-LGBT", hmm, wonder why? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Perhaps because the two are not mutually exclusive? And because the Alliance certainly puts more effort into fighting against trans rights than it does undermining gay or bi people. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We should leave the category out, as Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a parent category. This is not an exception to WP:CATSPECIFIC. Firefangledfeathers 13:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong about CATSPECIFIC, as Amanda A. Brant notes below. Firefangledfeathers 15:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights is a sub category of the broader Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights. The latter category also has country-specific sub categories such as Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States.

In other words the tree looks roughly like this:

• Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights (main parent category) [created in 2012]
  • (geographical sub categories:)
    • Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States [well-populated category created in 2016]
    • Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
  • (thematic sub categories:)
    • Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights

LGB Alliance is both an "Organization that opposes LGBT rights in the United Kingdom" and an "Organization that opposes transgender rights". Both are the most specific categories within their parts of the tree. The two sub categories complement each other, one is a more narrow thematic category (anti-transgender) and one is a geographical sub category within the broader parent category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights that all of these articles/categories already belong to.

If there were hundreds of anti-transgender and other anti-LGBT groups in the UK, we would make a Category:Organizations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom as a sub category of Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. But there aren't that many articles yet, and the U.S. category Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United States with its about 80 articles doesn't include any such sub category. Since there are probably between half a dozen and a dozen notable anti-LGBT groups in the UK combined, there is no reason to make the category tree more complicated than the one used for the United States.

Obviously the inclusion in a decade-old category hierarchy (and its specific country sub category) is correct and based on how the category is currently being used. Claims that the articles were added to the category by its "creator" are bizarre and ridiculous. Creating a new country-specific subcategory within a decade-old established category and based on the model of identical country categories (such as the U.S. category) is routine maintenance of the category system, nothing else, and the creator of the sub category is only a creator in a very limited, technical sense, who has only moved a few articles around that were already included in that category hierarchy. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove the category. --Amanda A. Brant (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this category is fine here. While the thrust of the LGB Alliance's campaigning has been anti-transgender rights, there have been a number of occasions where they have opposed gay and lesbian rights though they did roll back on that one later, opposed a ban on conversion therapy in the UK, linked the + part of LGBT+ to bestiality, co-ordinated homophobic abuse against a gay MP, engaged in erasure of sexualities other than gay, lesbian, and bi. And these are examples taken from just our article. I'd also note that I've opposed the deletion of this category as it seems premature given that it was only created a little over a day ago over on Categories for discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

To Sideswipe9th: I think you are misinterpreting the sources here. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, we don't really have any access to your thinking, but the sources support what Sideswipe9th has said. The Alliance has placed more emphasis on undermining gay rights than it has in promoting any LGB causes: all in service of its anti-trans stance, which was after all its founding raison d'etre. Newimpartial (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: could you elaborate please? That's a broad criticism to make across the selection I cited, taken from the main article page and paraphrased into my own words. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: You are the one putting forward the statements. It is up to you to show that your sources support your statements. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: I'd suggest you read the sources if you haven't already, or re-read the sources in light of what I've said here and just a little further down this discussion. The sources are self explanatory in the context of this discussion. Your objection to them however is not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: The sources do not support your statements. I suggest you read them again. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sweet6970: What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Obviously we are significantly differing in our reading of those sources. As much as I'd love me some super powers, I am not a mind reader, so I cannot address your potential misunderstandings or misconceptions without know what it is exactly that you're objecting to. The sources do not support your statements is an extremely broad statement. What part of what I've said is not backed up by the source? How is it not backed up by the source? What do you think the source says as that is clearly different from how I read it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: We are going round in circles, and you have just cut yourself with Hitchens’s razor. You have provided no evidence in support of your statements – so I don’t have to refute them. In your post of 21:04 this evening addressed to Crossroads, you asked 5 questions. The answers to the first 4 are: no, no, no, and no. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is anyone going to present a single source that directly supports the claim that this group opposes "LGBT" rights? Or are they going to keep pointing to sources that say other things and claiming that their personal synthesis of that material can be treated as fact? Crossroads ^-talk- 20:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If you see going to object to "they oppose transgender rights, while being indifferent to LGB rights, so therefore they oppose LGBT rights" as SYNTH, I think I will lose my lunch. The point is that they oppose the rights of LGBT people, not that they oppose the rights of "LGBT" people - thr sources don't have to use the acronym. I'm sure there are organizations in the equivalent US category that don't even know what bi people are, or who ceased operating before the "T" was consistently added to "LGBT". They still count. Newimpartial (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Taking sources that apply to a subset and applying them to the whole set is SYNTH, yes. Those organizations in the US category oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people regardless of knowledge of identity differences among such people. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • There is no requirement that any anti-LGBT group has to oppose "all the letters". Plenty of lobbies have taken on gay men or lesbians without attacking the other, historically, and lots of anti-LGBT activism doesn't even know what the B is. Your interpretation of "anti-LGBT" as opposing the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people is a nicely executed piece of trans-marginalization all for itself - the idea that "LGBT" really means "sams sex/gender attracted people" sounds like a highly dubious personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Don't read nonsense into my words. I was responding to the claim that some of the organizations already in anti-LGBT categories don't oppose the B, which is ridiculous. They oppose "homosexuality" as an attraction or behavior, which is something that clearlynunites 3 of the 4 letters. And organizations that oppose that also oppose transgender identity as part of that worldview. I do not think there exists a single organization that opposes homosexuality but not transgender identity, let alone opposes the G and not the L, as you imply. The point is, as I said, that taking sources that clearly apply specifically to a subset and applying them to the whole set is SYNTH. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Crossroads: The T+ part of LGBT+ the LGB Alliance likened to bestiality in a tweet which ended, and I quote Wake up policy makers isn't opposition to LGBT rights by calling on policy makers to restrict T+ in some way? The opposition to a ban on conversion therapy isn't opposition to LGBT rights, despite LGBT people being historically and currently targeted by such practices on account of who they are? Their rollbacked tweet on homosexual marriage wasn't an attack on LGBT rights before they removed it by saying that opposition to gay marriage was not homophobic? Their erasure of sexualities other than gay, lesbian, and bi isn't an attack on LGBT rights by restriction of self identity in sexuality? Or do you consider each of these synth because somehow LGBT is not LGBT+? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, none of this "directly supports" the claim you want to add. "LGBT" would mean they oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people and trans people. A deleted tweet is just that - deleted. As for the conversion therapy matter, that source says they expressed concern that "the current push to ban conversion therapy... is being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity". The same sort of concern expressed by some WPATH clinicians, as I explained. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • "LGBT" would mean they oppose the rights of same-sex/gender attracted people and trans people So pansexual, asexual, queer, intersex are somehow not part of the + part then? If the T+ part of the original tweet referred to transgender, what did the + part refer to? What meaning does Wake up policy makers have in relation to this if it is not calling for the restriction of rights against those parts of the LGBT umbrella?

  A deleted tweet is still a statement they made, and the fact that it reached media sources shows how widespread an audience saw it. And one of those deleted tweets drew the attention of the Charity Commission.

  Re: conversion therapy. It can be both things at once. It can be both an attack on LGBT rights, as evidenced by the reactions to it, and in the opinion of those two psychologists a political smoke screen. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and depending on the wider views of those psychologists could be interrelated.

  It really seems as though your primary objection is that because the sources don't explicitly use LGBT and instead talk about constituent parts of LGBT+ it is synth, however I'd point out that WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition, WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not primarily point-by-point WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH and WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not a policy. Perhaps you could clarify upon this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd mainly be repeating myself at this point. It is clear that regardless of the arguing in circles, there is no consensus to add this category. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like shooting a notification off to Wikiproject LGBT and Politics then would be in order to break this deadlock. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I'm happy with the status quo. But if you must pursue this further and think those who agree with me will be disagreed with by the broader community, I think the course to take would be a neutrally worded RfC so that we eventually get a definite closure, and to notify at minimum all four of the WikiProjects listed at the top. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there precedent for an RfC for adding or not adding a category to a page? That seems like a rather heavy process, for which there surely are alternatives? Not that I'm opposed to making an RfC, I just wonder if that's the only choice available here to resolve this dispute. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Also forgot to say this last night, thanks for pointing out that there are four WikiProjects attached to this page. For some reason I thought WikiProject Organizations was a category/oversight board for WikiProjects. I didn't realise it was it's own project. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue of conversion therapy is a red herring because it isn't a question about rights (unless people are coerced into it, in which case it is the coercion which is the transgression of rights, not the existence of the therapy in itself). The reason why conversion therapy should be outlawed is because it makes fraudulent claims. Fraudulent activities cause harm, which is why good governments outlaw them, but it isn't any person's right to live in a world without fraud (desirable though that may be). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion, but is certainly not the only objection to conversion therapy documented in reliable sources, some of which are based precisely in rights violations unrelated to fraudulent claims. Newimpartial (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Which are these sources? Do they explicitly state that the LGB Alliance is opposed to LGBT rights? Do any sources explicitly state that the LGB Alliance is opposed to LGBT rights? If not, then neither should Wikipedia. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Earlier today, I edited the article's lead to describe it as being opposed to transgender rights. However, I have been informed that certain editors object to this description entirely. I suspect that this may be relevant to our discussion here, as I believe we should be internally consistent on the set of facts we use when making decisions here on Wikipedia. PBZE (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This seems fairly clear-cut. All the heat being generated above is missing the point, and often seems to verge on original research. Nobody is disputing that the organization opposes transgender rights, which are certainly a subset of LGBT rights. It is bizarre to argue that for an organization to be included in the category of "opposing LGBT rights" it must oppose every single LGBT right (of which there are uncountably many) or equally bizarre – that an organization must oppose at least one right for each of the four letters in LGBT? I don't understand where one would even get such an idea, and I'll refrain from speculating.

Take, for instance, the Marriage Law Project in the US. It strictly opposes same-sex marriage, and doesn't seem to have any positions about trans people. But I don't think anyone here would argue that it doesn't constitute an organization that opposes LGBT rights in the United States. This article (LGB Alliance) currently lives in Category:Organisations that oppose transgender rights in the United Kingdom, which is a subcategory within Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights in the United Kingdom. I think the article could be placed equally well at either level of the tree, but I do agree with comments above that the subcategory doesn't really seem well-populated enough to be necessary, as we don't have an analogous subcategory for the US. Srey Sros^talk 04:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Call for category deletion from blocked sockpuppet Getting bond wrong – SreySros (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an inflammatory category and should be removed. The category was created and applied on the same day as this comment claiming this category is "unopposed". Without a definition of what constitutes "transgender rights" or what "opposition" means, this category only serves to advance a single POV and give the false impression of those tagged as being wholly in opposition to transgender rights. The Charity Commission said: "A purpose of promoting the equality and human rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is not inherently discriminatory and does not necessarily have the effect of inhibiting the rights of transgender people." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision Getting bond wrong (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC) @Getting bond wrong: I've moved your comment to this subsection, as this one is talking about the categories more specifically and the other is on a slight reformulation of the lead sentence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Thank you. Additionally, the tree makes no sense - the LGB Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights as they understand them and as reflected in the 2010 Equality Act, yet has been placed in a subcategory of the category "Organizations that oppose LGBT rights". Again, this is advancing the POV that LGB and LGBT rights are inseparable and/or never in opposition, as well as placing an LGB rights charity in the same category tree as the BNP. The whole basis of their existence is that there is a disagreement in how best to advance LGB rights, as described by Gendered Intelligence on October 24th 2019 https://genderedintelligence.wordpress.com/2019/10/24/gis-take-on-the-lgb-alliance-they-will-not-divide-us/ Getting bond wrong (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Do you have any independent, reliable sources supporting your claim that the LGB Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights? That blog wouldn't be one, even if it supported your claim. Newimpartial (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) This is specifically stated in their charitable objects, as verified and accepted by the Charity Commission. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/lgb-alliance/lgb-alliance-full-decision The point of the statement by Gendered Intelligence is not to demonstrate the purpose of LGB Alliance, but to demonstrate GI's objections to the LGB Alliance as representative of the root of this dispute - ie, that this amounts to a difference of opinion in how to further LGB rights. Given that GI is one of the charities currently trying to challenge LGB Alliance's charitable status, this is a relevant opinion. Given also that they made this statement on October 24th 2019, it further demonstrates that this has always been an ideological difference, not rooted in any particular actions. This makes categorising LGB Alliance as opposed to LGBT rights untenable, when their purpose is specifically to advance LGB rights alone, and that is specifically what their detractors criticised them for at their inception. Getting bond wrong (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC) The Charity Commission's decision - which is under appeal at the moment - would not offer reliable sourcing that the Alliance specifically campaigns for LGB rights, even if it is upheld. That is well beyond the mandate of the commission. So far, no reliable source has been presented that the Alliance actually "campaigns for LGB rights", only that they claim to do so (and Gendered Intelligence is not RS on this, however one interprets the blog). Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "41.There is some suggestion in the objections to registration that the objects declared in clause 2 of LGB Alliance’s Articles of Association are not its “true” objects. This is, in legal terms, an allegation that clause 2 is a “sham”. [...]" "42.The Commission found no evidence to support allegations of dishonesty or a sham." The claim you make - that they are lying about their charitable objects - was investigated by the CC and dismissed, because that is indeed part of their remit. Getting bond wrong (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Where did I claim that they are lying about their charitable objects? And if you can't tell the difference between no evidence to support allegations of dishonesty and positive evidence that the Alliance campaigns for LGB rights, then perhaps you are not equipped to edit articles where such differences are important. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Just to add my 2p worth... It is not for us to tear the mask off, that would be Original Research. The key point here is that there never really was a mask in the first place and we have multiple Reliable Sources acknowledging this. The LGBA has put almost no effort into portraying itself as an LGB rights organisation beyond simply claiming to be one. If you look at almost any other article about a charity you see that the largest section documents the charity's activities in support of its stated cause. We don't even have an "Activities" section here! Do they even have any activities apart from organising a conference? Instead we have a "Views" section where every single thing is about their anti-trans viewpoint. Even the section entitled "LGB rights" says literally nothing about actual LGB rights at all. It is all just anti-trans stuff. OK. So are we misrepresenting them by omitting their actual LGB supporting activities from the article and focussing exclusively on the anti-trans stuff? Well, if we are then so is their own website! There is no "Activities" section there either and the "Events" section is just the conference and a load of archived Zoom calls. There is no mask. We are under no obligation to pretend that there is, particularly when the sources say otherwise. That would be Original Research too. We are obliged to say how they represent themselves, and we do. We don't need to do more than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "It is all just anti-trans stuff" that is your POV, nothing more. Getting bond wrong (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Actually, it is the secondary sources that back that up, not the POV of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 15:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Let's not get hung up on my use of the specific phrase "anti-trans stuff" above. If anybody doesnt like that they are welcome to read "stuff about trans people" or "stuff not directly about LGB people" in its place and they will get my point well enough. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC) All 6 things on their "campaigns" page are directly relevant to the rights and representation of LGB people, from their POV. That you think they are not is your POV. You're citing a primary source and saying it is proof on its own, based on your own interpretation of it, while the intent of the authors demonstrates the opposite. Considering LGB&T rights as inseparable leads to the absurd categorisation where a charity that believes itself to be pro-LGB is categorised as anti-LGBT because the category tree itself does not separate the two. The categorisation is inherently POV. Getting bond wrong (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC) In way are thse six "campaigns" directly relevant to the rights and representation of LGB people? Them saying so does not make it so: Wikipedia is not a Nietzschean realm in which all POV are equally "true", regardless of consensus reality. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bad collapse. The user is not banned; they seem to have misunderstood the clean start rules, were not using the two accounts at the same time, and are back to their original account which is unblocked. [1] Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit required due to new information on tribunal hearing against LGB Alliance

The Wikipedia Article states in multiple areas that "An appeal against its charitable status is expected to take place between March and May 2022." However, a source from a public interest law group which is involved in the lawsuit (linked below) recently revealed a full hearing will take place on May 2022, so the article should be edited to specifically state that it will take place on May instead of between March and May.

Source'

--NeverEndingForever (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done: I've updated both the lead and the charitable status sections with this information, though I used a PinkNews source instead of the primary Good Law Project press release. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

MP calls for 'minimum standard of behaviour' for organisations seeking charity status `

Not sure how to include this information, please be bold if you do

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/john-nicholson-suggests-that-if-an-organisation-can-receive-charity-status-despite-records-of-abusive-behaviour-that-the-system-is-wrong.html

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)